Bourjaily v. United States
97 L. Ed. 2d 144 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
Facts
Clarence Greathouse, an FBI informant, arranged to sell a kilogram of cocaine to Angelo Lonardo. Lonardo agreed to find individuals to distribute the drug and, in a tape-recorded call, mentioned a "gentleman friend" with questions. Greathouse later spoke to this "friend" about the drug's quality and price. Greathouse and Lonardo then arranged for the sale to occur in a hotel parking lot, where Lonardo would transfer the cocaine from Greathouse's car to the "friend," who would be waiting in his own car. FBI agents arrested Lonardo and the petitioner (the "friend") immediately after Lonardo placed the cocaine into the petitioner's car. Over $20,000 in cash was found in the petitioner's car.
Procedural history
The District Court found that the Government established a conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence, admitted Lonardo's telephone statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and convicted the petitioner. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis and conclusion regarding the admissibility of the statements and rejected the petitioner's Confrontation Clause argument. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the questions regarding the admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
Issue
1. Must a court determine by independent evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant and declarant were members? 2. What quantum of proof is required for such determinations? 3. Must a court examine the circumstances of such a statement to determine its reliability under the Confrontation Clause?
Holding
1. A court, in making a preliminary factual determination under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), may examine the hearsay statements sought to be admitted. 2. The offering party must prove the preliminary facts by a preponderance of the evidence. 3. The Confrontation Clause does not require an independent inquiry into the reliability of statements that satisfy the requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
Rule
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) states that a statement is not hearsay if offered against a party and is a statement by a coconspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) provides that preliminary questions concerning admissibility are determined by the court, and in doing so, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those regarding privileges. Therefore, preliminary facts relevant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, and courts may consider the hearsay statements themselves, along with independent evidence, in making this determination. The co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is firmly rooted in jurisprudence, meaning the Confrontation Clause does not require a separate inquiry into the reliability of statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.